USA V. MARTIN GARCIA-MORENO, No. 19-50270 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-50270 D.C. No. 3:19-cr-01507-AJB-1 MEMORANDUM* MARTIN GARCIA-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Martin Garcia-Moreno appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Garcia-Moreno contends that the district court procedurally erred in a variety of ways, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence, by providing an internally inconsistent justification for the sentence. We review GarciaMoreno’s procedural claims for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and his claim that his sentence is substantively unreasonable for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record demonstrates that the district court’s explanation for the sentence was not internally inconsistent. The district court discussed Garcia-Moreno’s “long history of immigration convictions” and acknowledged the unlikelihood of deterring him, but explained that general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to punish and to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, remained important sentencing considerations. The court also acknowledged and gave weight to Garcia-Moreno’s mitigating argument concerning his early guilty plea. On this record, the court did not commit plain procedural error. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the withinGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Garcia-Moreno also argues that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because it exceeds two years and he did not admit, nor did a jury find, that he had a 2 19-50270 prior felony conviction. As Garcia-Moreno concedes, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), forecloses his argument. Contrary to his contention, United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2377 n.3 (Almendarez-Torres is not implicated by the issue decided in Haymond); see also United States v. LeyvaMartinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Almendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.”). AFFIRMED. 3 19-50270
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
